About your Search

20140226
20140306
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
and on their tvs, those are pro russian local forces of self-defense. president obama appearing at a function had this to say regarding putin's claim. >> there is a strong belief that russia's action is violating international law. i know president putin seems to have a different set of lawyers making a different set of interpretations, but i don't think that's fooling anybody. >> secretary of state john kerry who arrived in kiev also dispute putin's claim when he was asked about it by my colleague, andrea mitchell. >> it's clear that russia has been working hard to create a pretext for being able to invade further. russia has talked about russian-speaking minority citizens under siege. they're not. >> kerry talked about a meeting with the new government and protest leaders including former pro boxer klitchko. the package includes a $1 billion in loan guarantees. still, the question is how to interpret putin's remarks today. not only did he deny russian troops had invaded crimea, he said that should russia wish to do so, they have every legal right since they would be doing it at the request of t
than a year later, george zimmerman who says he shot trayvon martin in self-defense was found not guilty by apall female nearly all white jury. the stand your ground law altered the way the jury was instructed. it also raised questions about how the case was prosecuted, particularly after jurors started speaking out, including mattie, the lone member of the jury who was nonwhite. >> it's very hard to be one of the persons that had to deal with him being free right now, but just to know that in my heart, you feel that a person is guilty, but when it comes down to the law, they give you so much that you can work with. >> now a new book takes up inside the george zimmerman he map jury room and we're learning more about maddy, about her interaction with other jurors and about the potential missed opportunity by prosecutors in the zimmerman trial. lisa bloom is a "today show" legal analyst who covers the trial and also a legal analyst for avo.com. her new book, the inside story of the trayvon martin injustice, is in bookstores now. thank you so much for joining us. george zimmerman
is give businesses who refuse to serve someone for religious reasons a defense if they get sued. so that's how the law would change the current religious freedom restoration act. it would apply to businesses. they could go to court if they're sued and say, you know, it was our religious -- this is our religious freedom. it would violate it to serve someone if we believe that would interfere with our practices and beliefs. >> so, pete, there are people who are making the argument against the law saying, well, listen, maybe a muslim business owner will say, i don't want to serve christians or maybe the law could be used in some other way. somebody who had an objection, let's say, to a service animal coming into a business and say, listen, i have a religious objection to animals coming into my business. could this law be used to discriminate against christians in arizona? >> here's the thing. there is also a public accommodations law in arizona. it makes it illegal to refuse to serve people based on a list of factors, including race, national origin, religion, sex, so forth. there is no pro
in defense of russian interests and russian citizens and the mobilization of forces around the black sea fleet was something people have foreseen for some time. >> i'm going to ask you to sort of read the mind a little bit of vladimir putin, of what sort of his end game might be. what do you suppose putin is up to here? is his goal simply to keep ukraine from falling under the sphere of the european union as opposed to russia, or do you think there's some bigger game that would have ripple effects both to the union and to the u.s.? >> there is a critical goal you just laid out, which is that the new government in ukraine, the weak new government and successive governments after it are not in the best position to have a close association with the eu, which is one of the things that triggered this in the first place. putin also does not want to see ukraine pick up the idea again of joining nato, for example, and there's also a strong signaling factor to all the countries around russia in the neighborhood, not just to ukraine, but also to moldova, georgia, and all of the other countries who
the defense of saying that was --, no, no, it was giving essentially people a defense in a lawsuit if a gay couple sued, but the other issue is if you were to try to say no to someone or even on the basis of their religion, that's already covered under current law. the only group not covered under current or federal state law in arizona for nondiscrimination is gays and lesbians. everybody else is already covered. >> that's a separate issue, of course. just to go back to what you were saying, if you actually read the language of the law, it was a terribly drawn law. it was full of language like if there's a compelling state interest, then you can compel someone to even violate what he calls his religious conscience. the point is i think reasonable people can agree and we should find the areas of agreement, not disagreement. for instance, i do think we should agree that people should not be forced by government to do something that seriously violates conscience if it is based on a legitimate religious recognized in your church. however, that doesn't give you the right to ban access to what w
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5